←back to thread

Eurydice: a Rust to C compiler

(jonathan.protzenko.fr)
185 points todsacerdoti | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
apitman ◴[] No.46179418[source]
I use Rust and C at work. I quite enjoy Rust, but I currently have no reason to believe C won't outlive it, by a lot.
replies(8): >>46179466 #>>46179713 #>>46179716 #>>46179780 #>>46180057 #>>46180446 #>>46183271 #>>46183498 #
mustache_kimono ◴[] No.46179780[source]
> I currently have no reason to believe C won't outlive it, by a lot.

My reaction is kind of: "So what?" I really don't care about the relative lives of languages and don't really understand why anyone would. Unless I am wrong, there is still lots of COBOL we wish wasn't COBOL? And that reality doesn't sound like a celebration of COBOL?

IMHO it would be completely amazing if magically something 10x better than Rust came along tomorrow, and I'd bet most Rust people would agree. Death should be welcomed after a well lived life.

To me, the more interesting question is -- what if efforts like c2rust, Eurydice, TRACTOR and/or LLMs make translations more automatic and idiomatic? Maybe C will exist, but no one will be "writing" C in 20 years? Perhaps C persists like the COBOL zombie? Perhaps this zombification is a fate worse than death? Perhaps C becomes like Latin. Something students loath and are completely bored with, but are forced to learn simply as the ancient interface language for the next millennia.

Is that winning? I'd much rather people were excited about tech/a language/a business/vibrant community, than, whatever it is, simply persisted, and sometimes I wish certain C people could see that.

replies(7): >>46179997 #>>46180024 #>>46180421 #>>46180840 #>>46181102 #>>46183027 #>>46184629 #
1. GhosT078 ◴[] No.46181102[source]
In my timeline, something 10x better than Rust came along in 1995.
replies(2): >>46181156 #>>46181247 #
2. 100721 ◴[] No.46181156[source]
Would you mind elaborating…?
replies(2): >>46181251 #>>46181384 #
3. speed_spread ◴[] No.46181247[source]
Java? Delphi? Better at what?
replies(1): >>46188804 #
4. everythingctl ◴[] No.46181251[source]
I’d guess that’s a reference to Ada 95.
replies(1): >>46181270 #
5. GhosT078 ◴[] No.46181270{3}[source]
Yes
6. GhosT078 ◴[] No.46181384[source]
Sane, easily readable syntax and expressive semantics. Easy to learn. Very scalable. Suitability, by design, for low level systems programming, including microcontrollers. Suitability, by design, for large, complex real-time applications. Easy to interface with C and other languages. Available as part of GCC. Stable and ongoing language evolution.
replies(1): >>46184718 #
7. antonvs ◴[] No.46184718{3}[source]
Manual memory management for anything beyond RAII.
8. Iwan-Zotow ◴[] No.46188804[source]
Ada